1

                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Management is key to ensuring that Maidstone Borough Council focuses on delivering its priorities of the Strategic Plan. The current Strategic Plan (2019 -2045) sets the direction for the Organisation and the Borough of Maidstone, and the four priorities are shown.

Performance management is about providing assurance to the residents of Maidstone that the Council works as effectively as possible in meeting the priorities of our Strategic Plan. This is done by monitoring key performance indicators and publishing this information for the public to see.

Performance Management is a tool that allows us to measure whether we are achieving our corporate priorities and should be managed and monitored at an organisational and operational/team level. This measuring and monitoring helps us to understand what action to take and when.

Performance Management is also important because it supports change and improvement in the organisation. In order to improve, we need to know where we are now to make sure we are doing the right things for the right reasons, and therefore know where we need to get better.

 

 

 

·         77.8% (7 of 9) targetable Housing and Community Cohesion Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) achieved their half-yearly (H1) target¹.

 

·         22.2% (2 of 9) targetable HCC KPIs missed their half-yearly target and have been rated amber or red¹; commentary for each service is provided before each service performance table.

 

·         52.6% (10 of 19) HCC KPIs are showing an improvement in performance when compared to the last mid-year outturn (H2 2023/24)¹.

 

·         36.8% (7 of 19) HCC KPIs are showing an improvement in performance when compared to the half-year outturn (H1 2023/24)¹.

 

 

[1] KPIs rated N/A are not included in the summary calculations.

 

 

 

 

RAG Rating
	Target not achieved
	Target slightly missed (within 10%)
	Target met
	Data Only

Direction
	Performance has improved
	Performance has been sustained
	Performance has declined
N/A	No previous data to compare

NOTE: Direction of travel for targeted performance indicators shows if performance has improved or declined. For data only performance indicators direction of travel shows if there has been an increase or decrease in volume.

 

 

 

 

Community Protection

Key Contacts

·         Martyn Jeynes, Community & Strategic Partnerships Manager

 

Comments

“Variation in the percentage of animal licensed establishments rated 4* or above can be influenced by many factors. Businesses are assessed against a matrix provided by DEFRA, which sets out specific requirements based on standards and risk. A positive trend indicates that businesses renewing their licences in this period have maintained their performance standards or the new businesses have demonstrated the highest standards^†. 

Whilst the Community Protection team (CPT) can encourage higher standards, the scoring is based on the level of compliance. Further incentive is provided by lower licensing fees for higher standard businesses.  Pre-application support has been introduced to help new or expanding businesses to understand the standards required to be licensed.  It should also be noted that a 1* rating still indicates that a business meets the minimum requirements to legally trade.

The data highlights a positive trend in the effectiveness of Community Protection Notices (CPNs) as a key tool within the Community Safety toolkit. This trend, driven by seasonal demand due to warmer weather, shows the service request driven action taken by the Community Protection Team.  It underscores the importance of Community Protection Warnings (CPWs). The high compliance rate with CPWs demonstrates their power in resolving community issues before escalation is necessary.

Categories where CPWs were issued in this period:

1. Noise, including loud music and construction noise.
2. Anti-Social Behaviour/Nuisance, such as unauthorised access to land, individuals causing disturbances and odour and smoke issues.
1. Waste in gardens/vermin, ensuring the removal of waste accumulation and the tackling of vermin infestations in gardens, preventing these problems from escalating.
2. Aggressive/Nuisance Dogs, including successfully addressing disturbances from dog barking, dog control issues, and aggressive dog behaviour.
3. Modern Slavery & Human Trafficking (MSHT), including using CPWs to control behaviour linked to MSHT, which can be easier to detect and address than the more serious crimes, to prevent further issues. 

Despite the effectiveness of CPWs, some issues required escalation to CPNs, including anti-social behaviour, noise and nuisance. Overall, the data underscores the value of CPWs in maintaining community safety and well-being, with CPNs serving as a necessary escalation tool when required.” – Martyn Jeynes, Community & Strategic Partnerships Manager.

^†[New businesses cannot be rated higher than 4].

Performance Indicator	Portfolio	H1 24/25 Value	Target	Status	Short Trend (H2 23/24)	Long Trend (H1 23/24)
Percentage of Animal licensed establishments rated 4* or above	Community Cohesion and Safety	80%
Number of Community Protection Notices (CPNs) in period	Community Cohesion and Safety	5
Number of Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) in period	Community Cohesion and Safety	51

 

Biodiversity

Key Contacts

·         Stuart Maxwell, Senior Scientific Officer

·         Duncan Haynes, Environmental Protection Team Leader

 

Performance Indicator	Portfolio	H1 24/25 Value	Target	Status	Short Trend (H2 23/24)	Long Trend (H1 23/24)
Improvement in Air Quality	Community Cohesion and Safety	Annual Indicator

 

Community Cohesion

Key Contacts

·         Anna Collier, Head of Insight, Communities and Governance

·         Orla Sweeney, Policy, Partnerships and Inclusion Manager

 

Comments

“The low-income financial tracker (LIFT) platform is used to risk score our Housing Benefit/Council Tax Support claimants by categorising them into a financial status of; coping; struggling, at risk (of crisis) and in crisis. The general trend of the ‘at risk’ and ‘in crisis’ cohorts has declined in the last two years, which can partially be attributed to the work of the Welfare Officer. However, the ‘in crisis’ cohort has slowly started to rise in numbers since September 2023, and the Welfare Officer is actively working with the cohort to understand their financial details and maximise their income, signposting to other organisations where necessary.

The total number of LIFT households has fallen by 3.6% since October 2022, from 10,341 to 9,969. Some of this decline can be attributed to the roll out of Universal Credit to existing housing benefit claimants, meaning they are no longer claiming with the local authority. We have worked with the ‘leavers’ to ensure that if they are eligible to still claim Council Tax Support once migrated to Universal Credit, that they do claim with us.

As well as working with the ‘in crisis’ households, the Welfare Officer has been working on a Pension Credit campaign, in response to changes to the Winter Fuel Payment, which includes targeted, direct, communications and tailored 1-1 follow ups. This work is also being supported by a Communications Plan. More broadly, a project plan is in place for the LIFT dashboard data, and this includes joined working across key services areas to address the wider ‘at risk’ group. This work is planned for Winter 2024 and will impact positively on the performance targets in place. There have been 26 supported applications for Pension Credit and Council Tax Support as well as a small number of successful Discretionary Hardship Payment and Exceptional Hardship Payments. This ranges from £27.50 per annum to £9,824.36 for individual households. A total so far of £53,990.35 has been secured for households in additional annual income this year.” – Anna Collier, Head of Insight, Communities & Governance.

Performance Indicator	Portfolio	H1 24/25 Value	Target	Status	Short Trend (H2 23/24)	Long Trend (H1 23/24)
Number of households at risk of (or in) financial crisis (LIFT data)	Community Cohesion and Safety	500

 

 

 

Housing & Regulatory Services

Key Contacts

·         John Littlemore, Head of Housing & Regulatory Services

·         Hannah Gaston, Housing & Inclusion Manager

·         Phil Jennings, Housing Standards Manager

·         Julie Shuter, Housing Portfolio Manager

 

Comments

“Recorded performance against this indicator during Q2 has not been at the standard expected. As a result, we have liaised with our contractor and following a review undertaken with our staff, work continues to improve the management and recording of repairs completed on time. With the appointment of the new Housing Asset Manager role, we anticipate that closer and more focused contract management will be achieved.  In addition, it was identified that data entry was contributing to giving the impression of poor performance. This has been addressed as the backlog of entries onto our software meant that we have now closed some long-term orders that were distorting the figures. Looking ahead, it is expected there will be a demonstrable improvement in performance over the remaining financial year.

The delivery of new affordable homes remains subdued for the reasons provided in the previous report. This relates to the general downturn in development activity, which is reflected by colleagues in the Planning Development Service. The general downward trend is compounded by housing partners concentrating their financial and staff resources on bring their existing homes up to the standard required by the new Social Housing Consumer Standards. This is resulting in a significant reduction in the number of affordable homes that are becoming available to applicants on the Council’s Housing Register, including existing transferring tenants. The stagnation in the sector will have a direct impact on our ability to move applicants through temporary accommodation, further exacerbating the negative outcome for applicants and the Council’s budget for temporary accommodation.” – John Littlemore, Head of Housing & Regulatory Services.

 

Performance Indicator	Portfolio	H1 24/25 Value	Target	Status	Short Trend (H2 23/24)	Long Trend (H1 23/24)
Housing & Strategy
Number of affordable homes delivered (gross)	Housing and Homelessness	28	80
Affordable homes as a percentage of all new homes	Housing and Homelessness	Annual Indicator
Housing & Inclusion
Number of households living in temporary accommodation last night of the month (NI 156 & SDL 009-00)	Housing and Homelessness	246
Number of households living in nightly paid temporary accommodation last night of the month	Housing and Homelessness	171
Number of Rough Sleepers accommodated by the Council on the last night of the month	Housing and Homelessness	46
Number of households prevented or relieved from becoming homeless	Housing and Homelessness	297	245
Number of Homeless Applications made	Housing and Homelessness	509
Number of applicants where S195(2) Prevention Duty ended as applicant became homeless and S189B(2) Relief Duty accepted	Housing and Homelessness	52
Number of homeless cases where the cause of homelessness is domestic abuse	Housing and Homelessness	66
Number of private sector homes improved through PSH interventions	Housing and Homelessness	119	96
Number of completed Disabled Facilities Grants	Housing and Homelessness	112
Housing Portfolio
Percentage of gas safety certificates in place on residential properties managed by MBC’s Accommodation Team	Housing and Homelessness	100%	100%
Percentage of electrical safety certificates on residential properties managed by MBC’s Accommodation Team	Housing and Homelessness	100%	100%
Percentage of Fire Risk Assessments in place for residential properties where this is a requirement under the Fire Safety Order (2005) (properties managed by MBC’s Accommodation Team)	Housing and Homelessness	100%	100%
Percentage of repairs completed within 21 Days (on residential properties managed by MBC’s Accommodation Team	Housing and Homelessness	47.31%	90%
Percentage of rent arrears (as a percentage of total rent roll) of properties managed by MBC’s Accommodation Team	Housing and Homelessness	4.59%	10%		N/A	N/A
Percentage of void residential properties managed by MBC’s Accommodation Team (re-lets)	Housing and Homelessness	6.1%	10%